May 30, 2014

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

205 NEWBURY STREET
PORTLAND, MAINE 04101-4125

RE: GINA TURCOTTE v. HUMANE SOCIETY WATERVILLE AREA
KEN-14-52


On May 29, 2014 Appellant received Appellees May 27
th
letter which is
accepted as Appellees response as required by court rules.

Maine Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(d), Effect of Failure to Deny,
stipulates, in part, Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
requiredare admitted when not denied...

Appellees May 27
th
letter indicates, The Humane Societymust apply its
modest resources judiciously. Unfortunately, at this time the Humane Societys
assets are at a historic low andfinds itself unable to afford the legal
expenses involved in defending Justice Murphys dismissal of Ms. Turcottes
Freedom of Access Act complaint.

Despite Appellees alleged financial disability to defend this action, their
silence is their acquiescence to all Appellants claims as mandated by Rule 8(d).

As this court has historically maintained, The standard of review for a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
is well settled. The motion must be decided based solely on the allegations in
the Appellant's complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). The court does not decide
disputed issues of fact; instead, it must assume that all material facts in the
Appellant's complaint are true. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551
U.S. 308 (2007). Not only must the court accept the Appellant's allegations as
true, but it also must accept as true all reasonable factual inferences drawn
from Appellant's allegations. See Kowal v. MCI Comm'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271,
1276 (D.C. Cir 1994); Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir.
1970).

Appellee states in their 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, pg 1 2, "A complaint
is properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
when it is beyond doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of
facts that might be proven in support of the claim." Richardson v. Winthrop
School Department, 983 A.2d 400 (Me. 2009).

Appellee further states, on pg 4 2, "the court has no authority under the
Freedom of Access Act to compel a private corporation to divulge private
information, confidential records, or trade secrets"; but again, these are not the
true facts of this instant case.

When this court reviews the record, it will be clear that Appellees failure
to respond is not the result of their financial difficulties, but due to an inability
to sufficiently rebut the facts, evidence and law, nunc pro tunc.

It will become abundantly clear that Appellee is in fact a public entity.

Appellee states in the May 27
th
letter, The Humane Society has already
spent thousands of dollarsdefending Ms. Turcottes initial civil actionnot to
mention her currentcomplaint andan Unfair Trade Practices Act complaint

Appellee could have avoided all lawsuits by strictly complying with Maine
Revised Statutes when Appellant called them on September 17, 2012 to report
her missing service animal.

If Appellee had maintained proper records and followed all procedures as
required by law, they would have reunified Appellant with her service animal
on November 12, 2012 and avoided every legal action brought against them by
Appellant, past, current and future.

Appellant submits this letter as her final reply and requires immediate
oral arguments for this matter.

In Peace,

GINA TURCOTTE
32 COURT ST, APT 1
AUGUSTA, MAINE
(207) 333-0628

cc: Bryan B. Ward, Esq.